Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Last Sunday the Islamic holy month of Ramadan began. It lasts until 23 October. Many will remember last year’s ramadan riots, which set France and, to a lesser extent, parts of Belgium and Denmark, alight. Rioting went on for three weeks. Each night thousands of cars were set alight by immigrant youths, until the French and Belgian governments ordered the police to no longer divulge any information about the disturbances, after which the media stopped reporting, the youths lost interest and the number of nightly “carbecues” in France dropped to the “normal” level of about 50.

It looks like some Brussels immigrant youths want to make “ramadan rioting” an annual event. Last Saturday morning, between 1 and 4 am, ten cars were set on fire in the Brussels borough of Schaarbeek. Last night several car and shop windows were smashed and one shop and five cars were set alight in the Brussels Marollen quarter.

It looks as if immigrants youths want to turn nightly rioting during the Islamic holy month of ramadan into an annual tradition. Around 8:30pm last night violence erupted again in Brussels, the capital of Europe. The riots centered on the Brussels Marollen quarter and the area near the MidiTrain Station, where the international trains from London and Paris arrive. Youths threw stones at passing people and cars, windows of parked cars were smashed, bus shelters were demolished, cars were set ablaze, a youth club was arsoned and a shop was looted. Two molotov cocktails were thrown into St.Peter’s hospital, one of the main hospitals of central Brussels. The fire brigade was able to extinguish the fires at the hospital, but youths managed to steal the keys of the fire engine.

Last night Brussels police arrested 53 youths, including 19 minors, in the Marollen neigbourhood. The area had seen heavy rioting the previous nights. Some of the arrested immigrants were carrying combustibles. One schack was set alight and one car was torched. The police said there were no serious incidents. Yesterday afternoon Freddy Thielemans, the Mayor of Brussels, told journalists at a press conference that of the 45 youths arrested the previous night 31 were known to the police for a total of 242 crimes. The Mayor emphasized that the riots were the work of youth gangs and cannot be compared to last year’s riots in France since there had been no direct confrontations between the police and the rioters.

As a result of a religious dispute, nearly 5,000 Christians were displaced and six were injured on September 20th, when Muslim rioters destroyed and torched at least 18 churches, 20 Christian homes, and 40 Christian shops in Dutse, the capital of Jigawa state in Northern Nigeria. After an Islamic young man made several unsuccessful advances on Jummai, a female Christian, he angrily reacted by calling her a fake Christian who follows a "useless Jesus." Jummai responded by telling the boy he followed "a useless prophet—Muhammad." Furious, the Muslim boy raised alarm through the town by proclaiming that a Christian lady blasphemed Muhammad. She was quickly taken to the local police station where she was kept in custody to diffuse the potentially volatile situation.

A year of violent clashes has reshaped Israel's strategic picture. Calls by the government to give up territory and redraw Israel's borders have given way to a less ambitious agenda that will seek to bolster the country's military, lower expectations about making further unilateral moves, and dampen hopes for a quick resolution with Palestinians. Mark Regev, spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, said, "We have two concrete examples where Israel redeployed behind internationally recognized frontiers, in Lebanon and in Gaza, and did not create the peace people predicted. Obviously, that affects our thinking about the West Bank."

After every speech I get the question "so what's the solution?" The answer is "peace through strength squared." Weakness and concessions embolden all aggressors as a matter of human nature, but its impact on jihad is greatly magnified because of the centrality of one of Muhammed's teachings on jihad. He forbade attack from a position of weakness, but mandated it from strength. Every show of strength, therefore, pushes back the jihad. To destroy the jihad, all one needs to do is turn to history. The fall of the Ottoman Empire essentially pacified Muslims globally without the need for much bloodshed.

Specfically, the only significant debate in the Muslim world is whether the West's strength is real or not. Islamists argue that there is no value to nuclear weapons, for example, when infidels won't ever use them. When entire populations demonstrate their enmity, such as the Palestinians, infidels refuse to use their strength to strike back at the group. Therefore there is no real strength, because Muslims can always be shielded by paralysis over "civilian casualties."

This single, simple lesson, however, is not at all understood. It can prevent the death of billions and the enslavement of all humanity. Would you please be so kind as to help us spread it?

Listen To The Scary Theme Music Playing!
It is surprising these days, considering the negative slant the Mainstream Media seems to delight in to read something about the War in the MidEast that is welcome.

WASHINGTON ? On a day when much of the capital's attention was focused on leaked excerpts of anintelligence estimate report that suggested the Iraq war was creating more jihadists, the militaryquietly released an intercepted letter from Al Qaeda complaining that the terrorist organizationwas losing ground in Iraq.

The letter, found in the headquarters of Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, after hewas killed on June 7, was sent to Zarqawi by a senior Al Qaeda leader who signs his name simply"Atiyah." He complains that Al Qaeda is weak both in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and inIraq.

A former jihadist who fought in Algeria in the 1990s, Atiyah appears from the text to be speakingfor Al Qaeda's Shura Council ? the group's decision-making panel chaired by Osama bin Laden. Inthe letter, he sharply criticizes Zarqawi's leadership, saying he alienated key allies necessaryfor the implementation of jihad in Iraq.

"Know that we, like all the Mujahidin, are still weak," he wrote in the letter dated December 11,2005. "We are in the stage of weakness and a state of paucity. We have not yet reached a level ofstability. We have no alternative but to not squander any element of the foundations of strength,or any helper or supporter."

This does tally with some of the manifestos issued by Abu Musab Zarqawi, before his quite timely end.

The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi?a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.

As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:

1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.

2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.

3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.

4. By tightening the resistance?s financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.

5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance?s assaults.

6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.

7. By taking advantage of the resistance?s mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.

In announcing yesterday that he would release the key judgments of a controversial NationalIntelligence Estimate, President Bush said he agreed with the document's conclusion "that becauseof our successes against the leadership of al-Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse andindependent."

But the estimate itself posits no such cause and effect. Instead, while it notes thatcounterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged and disrupted al-Qaeda's leadership, it describesthe spreading "global jihadist movement" as fueled largely by forces that al-Qaeda exploits but isnot actively directing. They include Iraq, corrupt and unjust governments in Muslim-majoritycountries, and "pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims."

The overall estimate is bleak, with minor notes of optimism. It depicts a movement that is likelyto grow more quickly than the West's ability to counter it over the next five years, as the Iraqwar continues to breed "deep resentment" throughout the Muslim world, shaping a new generation ofterrorist leaders and cultivating new supporters for their ideology.

In describing Iraq as "the 'cause celebre' for jihadists," the document judges that real andperceived insurgent successes there will "inspire more fighters to continue the struggleelsewhere," while losses would have the opposite effect. It predicts that the elimination ofal-Qaeda leaders, particularly Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whowas killed after the estimate was completed in April, would probably leave that organizationsplintered into disparate groups that "for at least a time, pose a less serious threat to U.S.interests" than the current al-Qaeda structure.

Yes they like bleak news, the revel in terms like quagmire. Shows how little they know or they will admit, to advance their own political agendas.

In Southern Sudan, almost 3 million Black African Pagan Animist and Christian peasants have been slaughtered. The government has termed it Jihad. In Dafur another half million dead in Algeria hundreds of thousand brutally murdered for not submitting to Sharia. Now that is what bleak looks like. Do they know? Do they even care?

So a small selected filtered portion of the National Intelligence Estimate has been leaked. As a result a more complete version has been declassified, I hope they choke on it.

The Bush administration yesterday released portions of a classified intelligence estimate thatsays the global jihadist movement is growing and being fueled by the war in Iraq even as itbecomes more decentralized, making it harder to identify potential terrorists and prevent attacks.

The war in Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding resentment of U.S.involvement in the Muslim world and drawing new adherents to the movement, the assessment says.The growth in the number of potential terrorists is also being fed by corruption, slow-movingpolitical reform in many Muslim countries and "pervasive" anti-American sentiment, according tothe report.

President Bush said he ordered the partial release of the newly leaked intelligence report to"stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq." (ByGerald Herbert -- Associated Press) VIDEO | During a press conference Tuesday with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, President Bush saidit is a mistake to think that the war with Iraq has worsened terrorism, disputing a nationalintelligence assessment compiled in April.

The jihadist movement is potentially limited by its ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam andcould be slowed by democratic reforms in the Muslim world, says the document, which reflects thecollective judgment of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies. In addition, it asserts that ifjihadists are perceived to be defeated in Iraq, "fewer fighters would be inspired to carry on thefight."

Still, terrorists with experience constructing roadside bombs and other deadly devices in Iraq"are a potential source" of leadership in attacks elsewhere, the report says

So why don't we see for our selves what the National Intelligence Estimate says?

French President Jacques Chirac met withRussian President Vladimir Putin in Paris on Sept. 22 before being joined thenext day by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Three years ago, the meeting ofthe three powers would have signaled a nightmare scenario for U.S. foreignpolicy.

How times change.

If anything, the meeting might havebeen hostile, as the logic for the trilateral alliance that once existed hasfailed. Though the three obviously still have much to discuss, theirrelations now are of little more significance than those between nations ofsimilar standing.

The Triumvirate

In the early days ofthe Iraq war, a diplomatic alliance spearheaded by Chirac, former GermanChancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Putin regularly met, consulted and spoke outagainst the United States' Iraq effort. The three formed a powerfuldiplomatic force rooted in friendly personal relationships and a worldview ofa Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis that could stand on its own as a global power.

The primary goal of this alliance was to counter and, if possible,contain American power. Solid geopolitical reasons underpinned this strategyin Paris, Berlin and Moscow. Paris has long played second fiddle to therespective global hegemon of the day, whether Hapsburg Spain, ImperialBritain or Imperial and then Nazi Germany. Currently, that hegemon is theUnited States. Thus, France, in particular the France of Charles de Gaulle ofwhich Chirac sees himself as the custodian, naturally seeks an alliancecapable of countering the global power of the day.

Germany's logicunder Schroeder was different. Germany had been divided and occupied by theCold War superpowers for two generations, and had the idea beaten into itthat Germany could not have a foreign policy (and certainly not a securitypolicy) independent from or hostile to Europe. Within that limited envelope,Germany for the most part chose to be the European Union's yes-man andpocketbook.

But after Germany's 1990 reunification, Berlin began tothink of itself as a country again, and under Schroeder it started developinga foreign policy within the confines of its internationally imposed envelope.If Germany would be allowed to think of itself as European, then Germanyshould -- in Schroeder's mind -- treat European sovereignty with the samerespect and care a normal state would reserve for its own sovereignty. Apartnership with Chirac's view of Europe -- which envisaged Europe as aglobal, if French-led, power -- was a natural fit.

Putin's logic alsowas different. During the Cold War, Moscow did everything under the sun todrive a wedge between Europe and the United States, believing (probablycorrectly) that so long as the West remained united, it could wait out andultimately overpower the Soviet Union. A divided West, however, would be muchmore susceptible to Soviet economic, political and/or military power.

This view re-emerged after the heady days of the early 1990s, when it(briefly and inaccurately) seemed Washington and Moscow were going to becomebest pals. As American power waxed and Russian power waned, Russia underPutin was forced to confront the uncomfortable revelation that if Russia wereever going to be secure, it had to have a European friend -- and a powerfulone. The logical choice was Germany, which, in addition to being the closestmajor European state, boasted the largest economy, and as Schroeder wasdiscovering, a rather malleable foreign policy. Schroeder was already cozywith Chirac, so Putin made the duet a trio.

And thus theParis-Berlin-Moscow axis was born.

Ungrateful Dissenters,Meddlesome Americans, French Relics

And it immediately ran intotrouble.

The first and most critical flaw in the trilateralrelationship was that, though speaking on behalf of France, Germany andRussia, made for powerful rhetoric, the trio presumed to speak as if itrepresented the entire swathe of European and former Soviet states. Bulgaria,the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, theNetherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, theUnited Kingdom, etc. in fact only have one thing in common, aside from theirlocation on the European continent: In the past 200 years, all of them haveeither been at war with or occupied by France, Germany and Russia. Even forstates such as Norway or Greece, which strongly opposed Washington's Iraqpolicies, the idea that Paris, Berlin and Moscow could speak for them withouteven consulting them grated. And for those that relied on U.S. military powerto guarantee their independence -- particularly the "new" European states ofCentral Europe -- the very thought the triumvirate could speak for them wasperceived as somewhere between horrifying and comic.

Beyond internalEuropean opposition, the Americans did not feel too hot about a grouping thatin theory contained allies that were in fact actively working to undermineits policies. Luckily for the United States, certain things were fairlyfirmly hardwired into the international system, giving Washington a greatdeal of inertia that the triumvirate was simply unable to dislodge. The U.S.dollar's dominance meant that even energy trade between Russia and France wasdollar-denominated. And France and Germany's budget shortfalls meant neitherstate was willing to underwrite the expense of setting up an alternativeinternational system. A triumvirate effort to repeal the European Union'sChinese arms embargo that would have ended most American-European defensetechnology sharing -- something that ensured that other European states wouldbring down the idea -- similarly failed to get off the ground. Such a dealwould have put weapons in the hands of the authors of the Tiananmen massacre,something all German political parties -- even Schroeder's Social DemocraticParty, though not Schroeder himself -- opposed.

In time, however, itwas France that proved to be the alliance's undoing. In May 2004, EurophilicFrance -- not the Euroskeptic United Kingdom -- defeated the Europeanconstitution. Chirac's worldview -- and, by extension, Schroeder's andPutin's as well -- required a Paris able to stand on the European platform(perhaps sharing that platform with trusted partners that knew enough not toblock the spotlight) and use Europe's strength to influence the globe.Without the unifying effect of a common constitution, however, the EuropeanUnion remains hobbled by a decision-making structure that allows individualstates to veto policies on issues of critical importance, such as how tolabel cheese. That national veto also exists for less-interesting topics,ranging from tax and judicial to foreign and military policies. Suddenly, thepolitical and economic assumptions upon which the triumvirate was built hadbeen sabotaged by none other than one of its own members.

Since thatdecision, the rest of the world has been readjusting. Though Paris, Berlinand Moscow were certainly at the forefront of the ideal of a world in whichthe United States did not dictate policy, they were hardly the only ones witha stake. Secondary powers the world over -- Brazil, China and India come tomind -- also fancied the idea of a world in which they might form regionalgroupings perhaps able to counter American hegemony.

But strategicplanners in all of these states have long realized that a multipolar systemis only possible with opposing political and economic poles. That means amultipolar world would require an economically vibrant, politically distinctand organizationally coherent Europe. When the constitution died -- andsporadic European rhetoric to the contrary, the constitution is dead -- thatidea, and thus the multipolar dream, died with it too.

The past 16months have seen the rest of the world unconsciously coming to grips withthis reality. Some states, such as India, have decided to experiment (albeitwarily) with a sort of alignment with the United States rather than toattempt to play (nonexistent) poles off each other. Others, such as Brazil,are viewing their own backyard in a new light, as years of mindlesscommitment to an anti-American system rooted in the ideal of multipolarityhas begun to generate undesirable effects (in Brasilia's thinking) inVenezuela and Bolivia.

And so the flaws in theChirac-Schroeder-Putin triumvirate's thinking have led to the triumvirate'sfaltering -- as did Schroeder's electoral ejection in September 2005.

His replacement, Angela Merkel, cleaves to a worldview shaped by herbackground in the former East Germany. For Merkel, American influence is notnecessarily a negative, and more important, her ideological envelope forGerman policy is far wider. Whereas Schroeder operated under the constraintsthe West imposed on Germany after World War II -- constraints that nearly allWest Germans consider justified -- Merkel and most East Germans considersimilar restraints imposed by the Soviet Union illegitimate. This freed upGerman foreign policy to espouse and advocate German national interestsindependent of Europe, empowering Berlin to craft a foreign policy free fromFrench hip-attachment. For example, within the European Union, Germany hasgone from an engine for greater integration to a force arguing as vehementlyas Denmark and the United Kingdom for the preservation of national vetoes inkey decision-making processes.

And of course, Schroeder's once-sturdyFrench conjoined twin, Jacques Chirac, is not as dependable as before.Chirac's term expires in May 2007, and barring an unexpected resurgence inhis fortunes, the French third of the triumvirate will also vanish.

That is because while Chirac's foreign policy is indeed rooted ingeography, that geography is not of today, but of the de Gaulle era. AfterWorld War II, France found itself in a miniaturized Europe composed of onlyFrance, the Low Countries and occupied Germany and Italy. The United Kingdomwas nursing its wounds and wanted little to do with the mainland, Spain waslanguishing in Franco-imposed isolation and the Soviet advance had completelycut off the eastern half of the Continent. For the first time in more than1,000 years of French history, no major European powers were scheming,maneuvering or marching to halt a French rise. France's first move? Begin toband its near abroad into the European Economic Community, the forerunner oftoday's European Union.

But the world of the de Gaulle era no longerexists. Not only did "Europe" expand to include major European powers such asSweden, Spain and the United Kingdom, but the Cold War's end introduced ahost of new players that did not see eye to eye with France. Paris couldorchestrate and perhaps even control a Europe of six, but in a Europe of(going on) 27, the best France can hope for is to avoid being drowned ineuromush. Like the rest of the world's geography, France's geographychanged.

But French foreign policy did not change with it.

Future French presidents, whether Nicolas Sarkozy, Segolene Royal or someother figure, will have one critical characteristic separating them from theincumbent: They will not worship at the altar of de Gaulle. A leadershiptransition will not necessarily make France a fast friend of the UnitedStates, but it will result in a foreign policy more rooted in the geographyof today rather than the geography of yesteryear.

The implicationsare potentially devastating. De Gaulle's world was one in which the Frenchcould control Europe, and that security encouraged the ambition that createdthe European Union. Now, the French no longer believe that; the union is nolonger something to be embraced without hesitation. If France, the architectof and -- to large degree -- the engine behind European unification, were toreduce its support for the European project, and if Germany is increasinglylooking out for its own national interests, why shouldn't Paris do the same?

Beyond the Triumvirate

Which leaves Russia's Putin allalone in the night.

Unlike Chirac, Putin's polices are not airydreams. Unlike Schroeder's, they are not about muscle flexing. Putin isquietly terrified his country and culture are in terminal decline; analliance with France and Germany was one of the few things that might staveof that unfortunate fate. As such, Putin was the most desperate of the threeto make the alliance work. But since he also has the most to lose if thealliance failed, Putin would naturally be the player to move away from thetriumvirate the most quickly when he realized it was doomed.

And hehas.

Part of Russian foreign policy during the triumvirate period wasto treat its two friends as well as possible and to leave some of Russia'sblunt policy tools, such as energy cutoffs and military rumbling, forcountries less willing to want things Moscow's way. But with Schroeder gone(so much was his commitment to the triumvirate that he now works for Russia'sstate-energy firm Gazprom) and Chirac's star fading, Putin has no reason tocater to French and German interests aside from a desire to be polite.

And Russians have a reputation for brusqueness absent a reason to bepolite.

Putin's new program is to look out for Russia's interestsusing traditional Russian methods that have not been directed against coreEurope since Soviet times.

The January decision to slash natural gasexports to Ukraine in the full knowledge that the resultant shortages wouldbe felt farther west (e.g., in France and Germany) was perhaps the firstlarge-scale application of this new/old policy. And it demonstrated Russia'swillingness to hurt its former allies in order to press home a criticalpoint: Our problems are still your problems.

In September, Russianstate-owned Vneshtorgbank purchased 5 percent of the European AeronauticDefense and Space Co. (EADS). Shortly thereafter, Kremlin officials leakedthat they intended to acquire a full blocking stake (typically 25 percentplus one share). EADS, designed in order to empower Europe to competehead-to-head with U.S. aerospace and defense contractors, has been the babyof the Franco-German partnership going back a generation. Efforts to keepthat baby in the family know no bounds, and the French in particular arerumored to be furious at the Russian intrusion. For Putin, French wrath isimmaterial. A Russian grip on EADS not only will secure more Westerntechnology for Moscow than Putin ever gathered as a KGB operative during theCold War; it also will allow Putin legitimately to demand meetings with coreEuropean players -- up to and including the leadership of France, Germany andSpain -- at a moment's notice.

In September, the Russian NaturalResources Ministry revoked the license for Royal Dutch/Shell's Sakhalin-2liquefied natural gas project and has threatened the same for Total'sKharyaga oil project on the mainland. Technically, both projects areprotected by production-sharing agreements, but in Russia, the rule of law ishardly firm. The message is clear: Investment and partnership with Europeanfirms is all well and good, but it will occur on Russian terms. Theseinclude, among other things, a European commitment to spread the wealth andshare technology liberally.

The Sept. 23 triumvirate meeting was atestament to the past power of the threesome -- the key word being past. Nonew initiatives were announced, no grand joint statements were released. Thebiggest news -- if it can be called that -- was the announcement that thethree powers were forming a study group to examine the issue of Russianparticipation in EADS, and that some natural gas from a stalled Russianoffshore project might go to Europe instead of the United States. The FrenchForeign Ministry, denied even the mildest assurance from Putin that Totalwould not be ejected from its Russian production-sharing agreement, wasreduced to issuing a statement of hope that all would eventually workout.

Though this will not likely be the last trilateral summit of thethree -- European meetings have a tendency to continue reschedulingthemselves long after the meat of a relationship has rotted -- it clearlyillustrates how the special relationship the powers once enjoyed has beenrelegated to history. Exposed to simple geography, rising strategiccompetition among the three is nearly a foregone conclusion. France andGermany will fight over, rather than cooperatively plan, the future ofEuropean unification. Germany and Russia will discover that overlappingeconomic interests in Central Europe are less a reason for common ground andmore an issue of winner takes all. France, looking to wring the last bits ofusefulness out of the European Union, will likely back a free trade deal withUkraine -- something that will rankle Russian sensitivities.

The oneplayer missing from this, of course, is the one player who will benefit themost from the triumvirate's demise: the United States. While Washington wouldlikely greatly enjoy maneuvering Europe's various powers into more mutuallyantagonistic positions, the current administration will not be the one totake such steps. The Bush administration is simply too occupied with Iraq andthe Iranian complications that go with it to take advantage of anyone. Untilthe White House can find more foreign policy bandwidth, it will be sittingthis one out.

Or at least, it will as long as the European powersallow it to. Traditionally, when European powers maneuver against each other,they tend to seek the assistance of an outside power, one that can serve asan ally to help them balance their threats. With Moscow, Paris, and Berlin nolonger seeing eye to eye, one -- and perhaps all -- will ultimately seek outWashington's helping hand.

Distribution and Reprints

This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.

The scenery on the site is usually very nice I rather like the purpose relayed to me

Dear Mr. Kauffman:

Thank you so much for you support. However, I shoul clarify that this blog's target is not to support the troops. This is a blog made from Spain, and my intention is to fight against the false belief that every celebrity holds leftish ideas. I know that happens in the US, and believe me, it's much worse in Europe. So I'm trying to bring famous people from the show bussiness, culture world, sports, fashion, etc, who have made statements holding libertarian or conservative beliefs, or, at least, against que ruling leftish beliefs. Certainly, someone who supports the troops is against that ruling flow, and so deserves to appear in this blog, though it is not the main target itself.

Anyway, thank you so much for your comments, and you`re a guest here anytime you feel like collaborating.

Here is just one of the sites Non-Left Celebrities.

Yes they not only linked to me they put my URL right next to LeAnn Tweeden

I think under the circumstances we need not stand on formalities, if you are reading this, please, just call me Dan? I would say we think alike. Allies can be allowed a less "proper" form of address. ;-)Technorati Tags:Left***Conservative***Libertarian***Spain***USO

Finally, a columnist has echoed my sentiments from last week that rarely has a facile opinion been so widely repeated. Here is how I explained it:

The conventional wisdom about the Papal Intifada is clever ("we'll protest your charge that we're violent with violence") but facile. Islam is not the slightest bit interested in fairness toward infidels. The entire point of the laws regarding insulting Islam and dhimmitude in sharia in general is to inflict humiliation on non-Muslims to pressure them into converting or accepting subjugation. "Submission," after all, not "peace," is the definition of "Islam."

See here and here, for some of the hundreds of pundits pontificating that the violent reaction to the Pope's implication that Islam is violent is hypocritical and ironic. (My favorite headline in this group, by the way, is this one: Many Missed Pope's Point)

Of course, this is precisely the point that was missed regarding the Danish Cartoon Intifada. Here is how I explained it then:

This controversy has nothing to do with fairness or sensitivity. It has to do with the insistence of Islamists on the principle of the primacy of Islam, and a second-class status (dhimmi) for others. We do not understand this because the West cannot conceive that anyone could openly espouse inequality as a principle.

Precisely as I have been explaining for months, Clifford May explains the reaction in the terms I used, dhimmitude and submission:

Many commentators have noted the apparent irony: The pope suggests Islam encourages violence — and Muslims riot in protest.

Many commentators have pointed out the apparent hypocrisy: Muslims are outraged by cartoons satirizing Islamic extremism while in Muslim countries Christianity and Judaism are attacked viciously and routinely.

Many commentators are missing the point: These protesters — and those who incite them — are not asking for mutual respect and equality. They are not saying: “It’s wrong to speak ill of a religion.” They are saying: “It’s wrong to speak ill of our religion.” They are not standing up for a principle. They are laying down the law. They are making it as clear as they can that they will not tolerate “infidels” criticizing Muslims. They also are making it clear that infidels should expect criticism — and much worse — from Muslims.

They are attempting nothing less than the establishment of a new world order in which the supremacy of what they call the Nation of Islam is acknowledged, and “unbelievers” submit — or die. Call it an offer you can’t refuse.

If you don’t understand this, listen harder. In London, Anjem Choudary — a Muslim Fascist if ever there was one — told demonstrators that Pope Benedict XVI deserves to be killed — for daring to quote a Byzantine emperor’s description of Islam as a religion “spread by the sword.”

“The Muslims take their religion very seriously,” Choudary explained as if to a disobedient child, “and non-Muslims must appreciate that and must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the Prophet. Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment.”

Iraqi insurgents — some Europeans admiringly call them “the resistance” — posted on the Internet a video of a scimitar, a symbol of Islam, slicing a cross in half. It would be a stretch to interpret this as a plea for interfaith understanding.

In Iran, the powerful imam Ahmad Khatami said the pope “should fall on his knees in front of a senior Muslim cleric.” In no culture of which I am aware is that a posture from which brother addresses brother.

Imad Hamto, a Palestinian religious leader, said: “We want to use the words of the Prophet Muhammad and tell the pope: ‘Aslim Taslam’” The Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh explained: “Aslim Taslam is a phrase that was taken from the letters sent by the Prophet Muhammad to the chiefs of tribes in his times in which he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam to spare their lives.”

It is not only those readily identified as extremists who voice such views. The prime minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, seemed to strike a conciliatory note, saying that the Pope’s expression of regret for his remarks was “acceptable.” But he added: “[W]e hope there are no more statements that can anger the Muslims.”

Similarly, on National Public Radio, a George Washington University professor, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, argued that statements such as those quoted by the pope — expressing sentiments some Muslims may find offensive — must be viewed as a form of violence.

Is the Western ideal of freedom of speech and of the press threatened? Of course but that’s only part of what is at work here. More significantly, Americans and Europeans are being relegated to the status of a dhimmi — the Arabic word applied to those conquered by Muslim armies between the 7th and 17th centuries. Based on shari’a law, dhimmis are meant to “feel themselves subdued,” to acknowledge their inferiority compared to Muslims.

In some ways, we already have done so. For example, Muslims are welcome in the Vatican, even as Christians are banned from setting foot in Mecca. We do not object to Saudis building mosques in America and Europe, even as they prohibit churches and synagogues on Arabian soil.

We pledge to abide by the Geneva Conventions when waging wars against Muslim combatants. We do expect those combatants to follow the same rules. They are engaged in a jihad and they will show no mercy to infidel soldiers or even to infidel journalists. The “international community” does not seriously protest. With our silence, we consent to inequality.

Most of the world’s Muslims are neither rioting nor calling for the death of the pontiff. But quite a few may reason that if Christians and Jews haven’t the confidence to reject dhimmitude and defend freedom, they would be foolish to stick their necks out. After all, a Muslim who challenges the Islamist Fascists brands himself as an apostate — as deserving of death as any uppity pope.

"Derer et yndigt land" was first performed for a large gathering of Danes in 1844, and became popular quickly with the Danish people. It was adopted later that year by the Danish government as a national anthem, but not the sole national anthem. This anthem is on equal status with "Kong Christian",which is both the national and royal anthem.

When the Danish anthem is usually performed or sung, the first verse is played in its entirety, then it is followed by the last four lines of the last verse. (This is true whether the lyrics are sung or not

Recentlty I have been posting music to Illustrate the Diversity of America, this week I have a different motive to express Solidarity with DENMARK

I maintain my Support of Denmark, and will later today, post links to and my thoughts about a Danish Editorial "We are being pissed upon by Per Nyholm "

I think I shall title my Post, "There is no "But" in "Freedom of Speech".

When I first started upon my journey through the blogverse I created a Statement of PurposeNow upon reading it, one can realize that I did not hold to every detail of that original statement, but from it's basic premise, I have never swayed, in my belief that the Blogs are in fact the Committees of Correspondence of the Second American Revolution.

And that it is a Revolution of Information, no longer can we afford and allow elite gateways to control what we can see, hear and discuss.

For I believe that those bloggers who find their way, here and in particular from the Blogs associated with Sam.

HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.

Some of us are more Serious, some of us are more lighthearted and some post the common ordinary things that make one smile and recall that Life without the simple things to treasure is meaningless.

And it is important that all have a platform from which to speak.

As I understand this process you can link to this post and trackback to this post on ANY subject or post you think important. It is open. I will repeat this every Monday.

The Committees of Correspondence welcomes your intelligent comments. And also welcomes you to join the

OPEN TRACKBACK ALLIANCE

This week I also have shortened my usual introduction for a more inportant message.

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianismCreated by Mark Jefferson on March 1st, 2006 at 5:42 pm AST

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all. "